See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262830877

Context Variations and Pluri-Methodological Issues Concerning the

Expression of a Social Representation: The Example of the Gypsy Community

Article  in  The Spanish Journal of Psychology · November 2014

DOI: 10.1017/sjp.2014.84

CITATIONS READS

45 515

5 authors, including:

Anthony Piermattéo Gregory Lo Monaco

Lille Catholic University Aix-Marseille Université
37 PUBLICATIONS   279 CITATIONS    132 PUBLICATIONS   1,264 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fabien Girandola Jean Louis Tavani

Aix-Marseille Université Université de Vincennes - Paris 8
151 PUBLICATIONS   1,063 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   470 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ANR TEMPORALITY 2017 : The interplay between memory and temporality: a transdisciplinary study in young and old subjects and in neurodegenerative diseases View
project

[ANR] Responding to the spreading of conspiracy theories View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregory Lo Monaco on 03 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Spanish Journal of Psychology (2014), 17, e85, 1–12.
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid
doi:10.1017/sjp.2014.84

Context Variations and Pluri-methodological Issues

concerning the Expression of a Social Representation:
the Example of the Gypsy Community

Anthony Piermattéo1, Grégory Lo Monaco1, Laure Moreau1, Fabien Girandola1 and Jean-Louis Tavani2
1 Aix-Marseille Université (France)
2 Université Paris Descartes (France)

Abstract. Within the social representations’ field of research, the “mute zone” hypothesis considers that some objects
are characterized by counternormative content that people usually do not express in standard conditions of production.
Within the framework of this approach, this study aims to explore the variations in the expression about the Gypsy
community following the manipulation of different contexts and the issues associated with a pluri-methodological
approach of data analysis. Indeed, two methodologies have been combined. The participants were asked to express
themselves in public or in private. In addition, the identity of the experimenter was also manipulated as she presented
herself as a Gypsy or not. Then, through a set of analyses based on a methodological triangulation approach, we were
able to observe a recurrent modulation of the participants’ answers. These analyses highlighted a greater incidence of
the expression of counternormative elements when the context of expression was private and especially when the exper-
imenter did not present herself as a Gypsy (p < .01, ηp² = .06). These results will be discussed in terms of the contribution
of the methodologies employed and their comparison within the framework of the study of counternormative content.

Received 10 December 2013; Revised 20 March 2014; Accepted 9 May 2014

Keywords: social representations, counternormative content, contexts of expression, research methods.

Since the initial work conducted by Guimelli and
Deschamps (2000) on the mute zone of social represen-
tations (SR), the question of this social phenomenon
has aroused interest and led to subsequent research.
These works have focused on two areas of research:
theoretical and methodological. This second area will
constitute the main focus of this contribution. In this
perspective, we will rely on the SR of the Gypsy com-
munity. Indeed, apart from the work carried out by
Guimelli and Deschamps (2000), one can notice that
this object has been tackled through several studies.
For example, Mamontoff (2008) conducted a study
based on the question of the link between the SR of
work of the Gypsy community and the practices
adopted by this group. Moreover, the same author
focused part of her work on the SR of the identity of
this specific group, particularly through the question
of the link between settlement practices and the trans-
formation of the SR of the Gypsy identity Mamontoff
(1996). Otherwise, in line with the works conducted
about the relationships between majority and ethnic
minority, Perez, Moscovici, and Chulvi (2007) showed
that despite a positive image, the Gypsy minority is the
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to
Anthony Piermattéo. Aix Marseille Université, LPS EA 849, 13621,
Aix en Provence, France.
E-mail: anthony.piermatteo@gmail.com
target of an ontologization process. These results allow
to consider that part of the SR of the Gypsy commu-
nity could be composed of negative content. Such
content could therefore be censored by individuals
and groups, a phenomenon that led Guimelli and
Deschamps (2000) to hypothesize the existence of a
mute zone in the representational field.
The mute zone of SR can be defined as “a specific
subset of cognitions, which, whilst being available,
would not be expressed by the participants in standard
conditions of production” (Guimelli & Deschamps,
2000, p. 53). Thus, to highlight the fact that under some
conditions, individuals may not express all that they
think about particular objects, Guimelli and Deschamps
(2000) suggest manipulating the contexts of expres-
sion. To this end, they use a technique called “substitu-
tion” which is directly derived from the identification
paradigm (Jellison & Green, 1981). This technique con-
sists in varying the context of expression by creating
two verbal associative task situations. In the first case,
individuals have to express themselves from their own
point of view (i.e., as they think), whilst in the second
case, they have to express themselves as others would
(e.g., as the French in general would do). The results
obtained by means of this procedure show that under
the substitution instruction context, the expression
of counternormative elements is facilitated. Indeed,
when instructed to answer “normally”, for example,
2 A. Piermattéo et al.
Gypsies are considered as nomads and/or musicians.
By contrast, when participants are asked to answer as
the French in general would do, Gypsies are presented
as thieves (64% in a substitution context vs. 26% in a
“normal” context). Thus, with regard to various objects
of studies such as “Gypsies” (Guimelli & Deschamps,
2000), “Insecurity” (Deschamps & Guimelli, 2004),
“Maghrebins” (Abric, 2003), “Islam” (Flament,
Guimelli, & Abric, 2006), “the Muslim community”
(Guimelli, Lo Monaco, & Deschamps, 2010), “the
Woman at work” and “Male/female work” (Flament
et al., 2006), “Alcohol” (Lo Monaco et al., 2009), it is
under this context of substitution that some opinions,
beliefs or attitudes, which are not usually expressed
under the so-called “normal” conditions, appear. From
a theoretical viewpoint, as suggested by Guimelli and
Deschamps (2000, p. 53) this is a social desirability
effect related to the salience of a tolerance norm in self-
presentation which leads participants to mask their
negative opinions.
Another way to reveal social desirability issues
related to negative opinions has been explored by
means of the normative decontextualization technique
(Flament et al., 2006; Lo Monaco & Guimelli, 2011;
Lo Monaco et al., 2009). Directly inspired by previous
research on the well-known experimenter effect
(e.g., Anderson, Silver, & Abramson, 1988; Campbell,
1981; Davis, 1997; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams,
1995; Finkel, Guterbock, & Borg, 1991; Gilbert & Hixon,
1991; Schuman & Converse, 1971; Stangor, Swim,
Van Allen, & Sechrist, 2002; Sudman & Bradburn,
1974), the experimental manipulation is no longer
focused on variations of the instruction but on the
presentation of the experimenter. Indeed, Gilbert and
Hixon (1991) and Stangor et al. (2002) have already
used this variable. Therefore, in relation to these pre-
vious results, one can follow Abric for whom norma-
tive decontextualization works by constructing a
mediating event (interview) to facilitate the expression
of counternormative positions when interviewer and
respondent are characterized by the same group mem-
bership while inhibiting expression of these aspects
when the respondent perceives the interviewer as dis-
similar, or even as opposite. For example, concerning
the SR of Islam, Flament et al. (2006) have manipulated
both the presentation of the experimenter and the
instruction. The manipulation of these independent
variables allowed the authors to reveal a unique dimen-
sion called “masking to unmasking” by means of a
Guttman effect in the principal component analysis
(Flament et al., 2006; Flament & Milland, 2003, 2005;
Gaymard, 2006; Lo Monaco & Guimelli, 2011). This
analysis showed that, on the basis of the answers to
10 Likert scales related to the SR of Islam, the four
experimental conditions resulting from the combination
of the two manipulated variables were hierarchized
along this dimension. Then, the most favourable con-
dition concerning masking strategies was character-
ized by the combination of a dissimilar interviewer
with a “normal” context of expression while the most
favourable condition concerning unmasking was char-
acterized by the combination of a similar interviewer
with a substitution context of expression.
All these studies contributed significantly to iden-
tifying conditions and objects related to social desir-
ability issues.
However, since the work carried out by Guimelli
and Deschamps (2000) we should highlight the fact
that other research has proposed new methodologies
and new ways of interpretation, sometimes competing
ones. In this regard, it can be observed that a debate
has arisen around the question of issues related to the
use of the substitution technique. Indeed, following
the studies conducted by Guimelli and Deschamps
(2000) and Deschamps and Guimelli (2004), an alterna-
tive interpretation of the effects of the substitution
instruction in terms of social comparison has been pro-
posed by other authors (Chokier & Moliner, 2006;
Chokier & Rateau, 2009). It should be also noted that,
at the same time, the interpretation of the decrease in
normative pressure has been maintained (Flament
et al., 2006; Guimelli et al., 2010; Lo Monaco et al., 2009;
Lo Monaco & Guimelli, 2011). Finally, the work con-
ducted by Flament and Milland (2010) on the compar-
ison of the two competing interpretations favoured the
interpretation in line with the reduction in normative
pressure.
It is important to specify that the conditions for this
debate are based on the participant being led to express
him/herself as members of a wider group would do
and it is for this reason that the social comparison has
been considered as a way of interpreting the effects of
the substitution instruction. Nevertheless, the litera-
ture reveals another context manipulation that allows
us to go beyond this debate, in that the participant is
led to fill in the questionnaire always according to his/
her own point of view and never as the French would
do, as is the case for the substitution technique3. This
context has been used for a long time outside the field
of the study of SR but it has been drawn on in research
topics very closely related to the questions tackled by
work on the mute zone of SR. Indeed, it concerns the
inhibition or, on the contrary, the facilitation of the
3.We can notice the existence of another debate linked to the substi-
tution technique. Indeed, one can consider that the expression of coun-
ternormative contents associated to the substitution technique could
be attributed to the awareness of the representation shared by the
group in the name of whom the participants are asked to express
themselves (for more details about this alternative explanation see
Flament et al., 2006).
 Contexts and Expression Related to Social Representations
expression of socially undesirable content. In this
regard, we can point to the work carried out on the
expression of prejudice towards African-Americans
(Stangor et al., 2002), or even on the fact of whether or
not to report our drink-driving behaviour, (Lajunen &
Summala, 2003). In that perspective, the differences
between the private and the public context of expression
which it highlights reveal a strategy in terms of impres-
sion management (e.g., Goffman, 1959; Kuran, 1995;
Lajunen & Summala, 2003). Lo Monaco (2008) consid-
ered the manipulation of this context as a promising
area of research within the theoretical framework of
the mute zone of SR. It should be also noted that these
predictions have been confirmed in the recent work
conducted by Hidalgo (2012). Thus, in accordance
with Hidalgo (2012), Lajunen and Summala (2003),
and Stangor et al. (2002) one can expect a masking
strategy of counterternormative opinions which could
be more pronounced in a public context of expression
than in a private one.
Considering these different aspects, the results
obtained by Guimelli and Deschamps (2000) on the
Gypsy community offer an object of study that allows
to work on counter-normative opinions. Moreover,
it provides base line to seize the variations in the
expression of the participants following the context
manipulations. Therefore, the aim of the present study
is threefold. Indeed, firstly, we will focus on the manip-
ulation of a different context of expression which is
free from the debate concerning the substitution instruc-
tion. Secondly, to go further and in line with previous
research, this study will also manipulate the experi-
menter status (Flament et al., 2006; Hidalgo, 2012; Lo
Monaco et al., 2009; Lo Monaco & Guimelli, 2011).
Thirdly, the data will be analyzed through a pluri-
methodological approach (Apostolidis, 2003; Denzin,
1978). Indeed, such a way to proceed could allow us to
highlight the reliability of the expected effects.
Method
Overview
In the present study, we used a hierarchical evocation
task (Abric, 2003) to identify the SR of the Gypsy com-
munity among 240 students.
Two independent variables were manipulated, the
context (public vs. private) and the experimenter status
(Gypsy experimenter vs. non-Gypsy experimenter).
The results will be presented in four steps following a
methodological triangulation procedure (Apostolidis,
2003; Denzin, 1978). Firstly, using prototypical analysis,
we will focus on the frequencies and the average
importance attributed to the words associated with the
Gypsies from the perspective of the general sample,
and at the level of the various experimental conditions
3
(i.e., public/Gypsy experimenter; public/non-Gypsy
experimenter; private/Gypsy experimenter; private/
non-Gypsy experimenter).
Then, with the aim of identifying the results linked
to the word association task with greater accuracy, we
used a discursive corpus of sentences that participants
were asked to produce in order to clarify the words
or phrases which they had associated with the word
“Gypsy”. These sentences, obtained on the basis of
what we suggest calling “semantic contextualization”,
will be analysed via a lexicometric analysis using the
Alceste program (Reinert, 1993). As part of a third step,
using correspondence factor analysis (CORR. F. A.,
Benzécri 1976; Cibois, 1983; Deschamps, 2003; Lo
Monaco & Guimelli, 2008; Lo Monaco, Piermattéo,
Guimelli, & Abric, 2012), we will compare these exper-
imental conditions on the basis of the frequencies of
word associations (Deconchy & Deschamps, 2006).
Finally, we will focus on the attitudinal valence of
the associated words with a view to highlighting the
masking/unmasking phenomenon on the basis of
the results of previous research (e.g., Flament et al.,
2006; Gaymard, 2006; Lo Monaco & Guimelli, 2011;
Lo Monaco et al., 2009). To do this, we will carry out a
contrast analysis (Rosenthal, Rosnow, & Rubin, 2000).
Population
240 students (166 women, Mage = 22.30; SD = 3.60) from
a French university were asked to fill in a question-
naire. Subjects were randomly divided amongst four
experimental conditions defined by a factorial combi-
nation of the context (private vs. public) and the exper-
imenter status (non-Gypsy experimenter vs. Gypsy
experimenter).
Procedure
Verbal association task
Participants were asked to fill in a hierarchal evocation
questionnaire (Abric, 2003). This method is based on
free association which, according to Abric (1994, p. 66)
“is a fundamental technique for collecting the content
of social representations”. This remark is also sup-
ported by the large number of studies conducted on
different types of objects (e.g., de Rosa, 1988, 1993;
Deschamps & Guimelli, 2002, 2004; Deschamps, Paez, &
Pennebaker, 2001; Di Giacomo, 1981, 1986; Guimelli &
Deschamps, 2000; Le Bouedec, 1984; Lo Monaco et al.,
2009; Lo Monaco & Guimelli, 2008; Marková et al.,
1998; Moscovici, 1976; Piermattéo, Lo Monaco, Guimelli,
& Brel, 2012; Wagner, Valencia, & Elejabarrieta, 1996).
Participants were asked to associate four words or
phrases with the object of SR under study (i.e., the
Gypsies). Then, they were asked to rank the four words
4 A. Piermattéo et al.
or phrases from the most important (1) to the least (4).
As a consequence, it was possible for each word or
phrase associated with the inductor to be characterized
by a value corresponding to its average importance in
the representational field. Thus, it was possible to cross
the average mean with its frequency to be able to for-
mulate hypotheses about the central or peripheral
status of the words or phrases (Abric, 2003; Ernst,
Delouvée, & Roland-Lévy, 2011; Gaymard, 2006).
Following this second step, we asked participants to
estimate the positive versus negative character for
each one of the answers associated with the inductor.
This assessment was conducted using a 7-point Likert
scale from 1 (absolutely negative) to 7 (absolutely positive).
Proceeding in this way presents the advantage of
highlighting potential contradictions in participants’
responses. Indeed, such contradictions are often able
to reveal the specificities of the internal organization of
the representational field and can be very useful for
understanding the logic guiding of this organization
(Guimelli & Deschamps, 2000; Lo Monaco & Guimelli,
2008; Tavani, 2012).
In order to improve the contextualization of the
words or phrases associated by the participants, they
were asked to formulate four sentences on the basis of
the four words or phrases associated with the inductor.
This way of proceeding is directly inspired by the pre-
vious work conducted by Guimelli (1996, 2003) within
the framework of the basic cognitive schemes model.
However, in this study we decided to go further by
asking the participants to specify the meaning of their
association within a specific semantic context in order
to faciliate the thematic analysis following all verbal
association tasks. In our opinion, this technique, that
we suggested calling “semantic contextualization”,
would improve the objectivity of the thematic analysis
and provide a corpus of sentences for a lexicometric
analysis of the data.
Context manipulation
In the present study, the context variable refers to
two specifc contexts related to the answers given by
the participants, a private context and a public one.
The private context consists of assuring participants
that their answers will remain anonymous. They are
also asked to place their completed questionnaire into
a closed envelope before giving it back to the experi-
menter in order to ensure real confidentiality. In con-
trast, in the direct public context participants do not
complete the questionnaire by themselves. Effectively,
as in the previous studies by Blanchard, Crandall,
Brigham, and Vaughn (1994), Blanchard, Lily, and
Vaughn (1991), Monteith, Deenen, and Tooman (1996),
Plant and Devine (1998), Sechrist, Swim, and Stangor
(2004), and Stangor et al. (2002), the experimenter
reads the questions and response procedures to the
participants who have to give their answer orally to
the former who completes the questionnaire herself.
This direct public context (as opposed to the antici-
pated public context described by Lambert et al., 2003)
also required that participants revealed their first name,
last name and their student ID number as a way of
increasing the visibility of their answers.
Manipulation of the experimenter status
This variable, linked to the presentation of the exper-
imenter, includes 2 modalities: same ethnic origin
(Parisian, i.e., non-Gypsy) and different ethnic origin
(Gypsy).
In the experiment conducted by Flament et al. (2006),
this aspect was manipulated by means of the physical
appearance related to the ethnic membership of the
experimenter. Indeed, in the works conducted on SR
of Islam, Flament et al. (2006) asked the experimenter,
who declared her name to be Yamina in the specific
experimental conditions, to wear a headscarf. In the
present study, appearance could not be manipulated,
or only with great difficulty, so we focused on manipu-
lating the information given to the participants.
Therefore, before presenting the questionnaire to
the participants, in the “non-Gypsy” condition, the
experimenter pretended to be a Parisian named Laure
Durand, conducting research on the social image of
Gypsies as part of her social science studies. In the
“Gypsy” condition, the same experimenter pre-
tended to be a Gypsy named Carmen Flores conduct-
ing research on the social image of Gypsies as part of
her social science studies.
Results
Hierarchical Evocations
On the basis of the associated and ranked words, we
proceeded to perform a prototypical analysis using a
cross-table which included the frequency and average
importance criteria of induced words (cf. Table 1).
Firstly, concerning the analysis of the words pro-
duced by the participants, two sub-categories seem
to be distinguishable among the elements character-
ized by both a high frequency and importance. The
first sub-category seems to refer to the different
terms characterizing this group and its lifestyle (e.g.,
“Nomad”, “Community”, “Travellers”), whereas the
second one seems to describe the way in which this
group is perceived by society (e.g., “Social exclusion”,
“Stigmatization”). These elements which potentially
constitute the central core of the SR of Gypsies (Abric,
2003) refer to a representational content focused on
 Contexts and Expression Related to Social Representations 5

Table 1. General results in terms of frequency and average importance associated with the categories of word reported by the participants

Average importance

< 2.5 > 2.5

n M n M

Frequency > 10% Nomadic 116 1.97 Artistic folklore 123 2.72
Community 64 2.20 Caravan 95 2.73
Social exclusion 45 2.34 Poverty 39 2.56
Stigmatization 42 2.33 Culture 43 2.67
Travelers 36 1.58 Nuisance 37 2.99
Spain 24 2.29 Thieves 31 2.82
General prototype 24 3.17
< 10% Different Lifestyle 21 2.29 Conviviality 18 2.67
Child issues 9 2.44 Subgroups 21 2.69
Solidarity 10 1.90 Gypsy characters 21 3.24
Begging 17 2.94
Communitarianism 21 2.50
Divination 5 3.10
Dirty 9 2.56

descriptive aspects. Nevertheless, although these ele- Lexicometric Analysis

ments seem to be rather “neutral”, those composing
the first periphery (i.e., elements characterized by both
high frequency and low importance) are more negative
(e.g., “poverty”, “nuisance” and “thieves”).
In the second periphery (i.e., elements characterized
by both low frequency and low importance), some neg-
ative elements are also associated (e.g. “Mendicancy”,
“Communitarianism”, “Dirty”).
Finally, the contrasted elements (i.e., elements charac-
terized by low frequency and high importance which
refer to the possible existence of sub-groups among the
population) include words related to children’s issues
and to the distinctive lifestyle which characterizes the
Gypsies and also the theme of solidarity.
To conclude this first analysis, we note that the
majority of the induced words collected are more or less
in line with the representational content observed by
Guimelli and Deschamps (2000). However, some differ-
ences can be noted concerning in particular the presence
of elements underlining the stigmatization of this popu-
lation among the potentially central elements of this SR.
Nevertheless, it seems difficult to take this comparison
with Guimelli and Deschamps' work further as our study
draws on an experimental design involving two inde-
pendent variables. Despite everything, the term “Thefts”,
which was one of the most salient and focusing elements
in the work of Guimelli and Deschamps (2000), is high-
lighted once again within the framework of this study
under the form “Thieves”. To be brief, and given the illus-
trative character of this element, we propose to present
the different experimental conditions by focusing on it
(cf. Table 2).
On the basis of the sentences written by the partici-
pants to explain the words related to the word associa-
tion task, we conducted an automatic content analysis
using the Alceste program (Reinert, 1993). As part of
this analysis this discursive content was organized in
accordance with the four experimental conditions that
compose this study. The results highlight two stable
lexical classes related to our inductive word: “Gypsies”.
As we can see in Table 3, the first class represents
53% of the total content produced by the participants
and refers to the culture and the folklore associated
with the gypsy community. The content composing
this class is significantly related to the public condi-
tion, χ2(1) = 7.00, p < .01, and is therefore, more specif-
ically mentioned when participants give their answers
in this experimental condition. Effectively, in such a
public context of expression, the participants, who
are asked to express themselves on the theme of the
Gypsies, seem to produce answers that can be consid-
ered as descriptive or even normative, referring to the
practices, cultural habits and community functioning
that characterize this group.
This first class is composed of three sub-themes.
The first one concerns community activities and relates
to terms that compose a content widely based on the
Gypsies’ artistic values and their festal activities. The
two other categories refer respectively to the culture
and to the Spanish origins of the Gypsies and also to
the artistic folklore of this group.
The second class represents 47% of the total content
and refers principally to the social context in which
6 A. Piermattéo et al.
Table 2. Frequencies and average importance associated with the word “thief” according to the experimental condition
Context of expression
Private context
Gypsy experimenter non-Gypsy experimenter
8 (2.63) 11 (2.71)
Note: The first number refers to the frequency while the number in parentheses refers to the average importance.
Gypsies live and to the way in which they are perceived
by society. Unlike the first class, this one is significantly
linked to private conditions of expression, χ2(1) = 7.00,
p < .01, and seems to principally relate to negative
aspects characterizing the Gypsies. We can also estab-
lish a link between these results and the categories
observed in connection with the analysis of the word
association task. More precisely, this class is character-
ized by terms such as “thieves”, χ2(1) = 6.00, p < .05,
“stealing”, χ2(1) = 8.00, p < .01, and “poor”, χ2(1) = 12.00,
p < .001, terms that, for the majority, compose the
peripheral system of the SR of Gypsies for the whole
sample of participants.
This analysis emphasises the impact of the manipu-
lation of the context of expression on the discourse of
the participants. It thus appears that the private con-
text favours the expression of the negative aspects of
the Gypsies. Moreover, these results confirm the the-
matic analysis of the free associations and highlight the
value of contextualizing the participants’ answers.
Correspondence Factor Analysis (CORR. F. A.)
All the associations were submitted to a CORR.
F. A. (Benzécri, 1976; Deschamps, 2003; Guimelli &
Deschamps, 2000; Lo Monaco & Guimelli, 2008;
Mouret, Lo Monaco, Urdapilleta, & Parr, 2013). This
factorial analysis highlights the differences in terms
of frequencies of association relative to the indepen-
dent variables. It gives access to a summary of the
data by revealing a particular structure. It also enables
the identification of the most significant factorial
axes (Deschamps, 2003; Doise, Clémence, & Lorenzi-
Cioldi, 1993). The axes are composed of the different
modalities of the independent variables. Finally, it
emphasizes the correspondences between the modal-
ities of the independent variables and the words or
phrases associated by the participants.
Our analysis was based on word categories (N = 22)
created a posteriori according to a principle of semantic
proximity (these word categories were used in the
framework of the hierarchical associations analysis).
We then performed the CORR. F. A. using as inde-
pendent variables the different experimental condi-
tions (i.e., public-non-Gypsy; private-non-Gypsy;
Public context
Gypsy experimenter non-Gypsy experimenter
7 (3.21) 3 (3.00)
public-Gypsy; private-Gypsy; Deconchy & Deschamps,
2006). In order to decide whether an observation
(i.e., a word or phrase) contributed to the formation
of a factor, we considered the recommendations for-
mulated by Deschamps (2003) and used in previous
and recent works on SR (Lo Monaco & Guimelli,
2008; Lo Monaco et al., 2012; Mouret et al., 2013) in
termes of contribution by factor (CF)1. The two first
factors represented 86.20% of inertia (i.e., Factor 1 =
59.62%; Factor 2 = 26.58%). The variables which con-
tribute to the formation of the first factor are the
“private-non-Gypsy” and the “public-Gypsy” con-
ditions: CF (private-non-Gypsy) = .46 + CF (public-
Gypsy) = .33, thus a total contribution of 79% for the
formation of factor 1. Factor 2 is formed by the con-
tribution of the “private-non-Gypsy” and the “private-
Gypsy” conditions: CF (private-non-Gypsy) = .27 + CF
(private-Gypsy) = .52, thus a total contribution of
78% for the formation of factor 2. We observe (cf.
Figure 1)2 specific correspondences between the
“private-non-Gypsy” experimental condition and the
following observations: “social exclusion”, “thieves”,
“dirty” and “Gypsy-characters”.
The assignment of observations on the two factors
shows the impact of the manipulated variables on the
production of the participants. One can observe a con-
tradiction in particular between the “public-Gypsy”
and “private-non-Gypsy” conditions. These two con-
ditions are characterized by divergent content related
to associative logic consistent with our hypotheses.
Thus, in a public context and faced with a Gypsy exper-
imenter, participants provided a stereotypical view
of this group with descriptive aspects. In this case,
Gypsies are presented as travellers, of Spanish origin
and characterized by a culture, an artistic folklore and
a specific appearance (i.e., “general prototype”). On
the other hand, when participants answered in a pri-
vate context and faced with a non Gypsy experimenter,
1.The CF of an observation or of a modality of an independent vari-
able must be higher than the average CF to be considered as contrib-
uting to the formation of the factor (thresholds are the following:
.25 for the variables and .04 for the observations).
2.The “public-non-Gypsy” condition is absent from Figure 1 because
its contribution was lower than .25.
 Contexts and Expression Related to Social Representations 7

Table 3. Themes and words associated with the two classes composing the sentences related to the word association task

1st class 53% of the discourse 2nd class 47% of the discourse

Public context: χ2 = 7.00 Private context: χ2 = 7.00

Community activities Living conditions and social acceptance

family, music, playing, guitar, evening, fire, travelling
Culture and origins
Spanish, culture, flamenco, dances, traditions
Artistic folklore
women, style, rhythm,dancing, together
condition, social, accepting, finding, work, stable
Poverty and bad reputation
stealing, thief, state, place, reputation,living, poor, population

they express terms related to nuisances caused by
Gypsies (e.g., perceived danger, problems caused, and
the fact that they take advantage of the system) and
the fact they are victims of stigmatization. It appears
that participants were more able to express counter-
normative content when they were placed in condi-
tions which aimed at promoting the expression of
such points of view. Indeed, in the “private-non-
Gypsy” condition, participants mentioned “thieves”
significantly more frequently (37.93%) than in the
“public-Gypsy” condition (24.14%), χ2(1) = 3.95, p < .05.
Moreover, participants mentioned the element “dirty”
significantly more frequently in the “private-non-
Gypsy” condition (54.55%) than in the “public-Gypsy”
condition (9.09%), χ2(1) = 46.53, p < .001.
The CORR. F. A. thus highlights the results observed
by means of the qualitative analysis of the sentences.
However, more relevant to our study is the fact that by
means of the CORR. F. A. it was possible to reveal
the cross-effect of the independent variables. In this
perspective, the CORR. F. A. allows us to confirm the
differences observed between the experimental condi-
tions within the framework of the prototypical analyses
by highlighting the significant differences in terms of
frequencies of association.
Attitudinal Valence of the Beliefs Associated With
Gyspsies
In order to highlight the results obtained by means
of the CORR. F. A. concerning the experimental con-
ditions, we focused on the average attitudinal scores
related to the associations produced by the participants
(cf. Table 4). As a reminder, the participants were asked
to assess their associations by means of 7-point Likert
scales (from 1 = very negative to 7 = very positive). Such

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the results obtained by means of the CORR. F. A. concerning factors 1 and 2.
Note: Grayed blocks refer to the experimental conditions. “Experimental conditions” contribute to the formation of Factor 1;
“Experimental conditions” refer to the experimental conditions which contribute to the formation of Factor 2; “Experimental
condition” refer to the experimental conditions which contribute to the formation of both Factors 1 and 2. “Observations” refer
to the observations which contribute to the formation of Factor 1; “Observations” refer to the observations which contribute to
the formation of Factor 2; “Observations” refer to the observations which contribute to the formation of both Factors 1 and 2.
8 A. Piermattéo et al.
Table 4. Average importance and standard deviation related to attitudes regarding associated words according to experimental conditions
Context of expression
Private context
Gypsy Experimenter non-Gypsy Experimenter
3.99 (1.03) 4.01 (1.22)
Note: The first number refers to the mean while the number in parentheses refers to standard deviation.
a measure enables us to clarify the meaning of the
associations by asking the participants to take a position
on their own production. On the basis of such assess-
ments, the different experimental conditions were sub-
mitted to a contrast analysis (Rosenthal et al., 2000).
Consequently, on the basis of previous works including
a similar design (Flament et al., 2006; Gaymard, 2006;
Lo Monaco & Guimelli, 2011; Lo Monaco et al., 2009)
the different experimental conditions were ordered as
follows: private-non-Gypsy; private-Gypsy; public-
non-Gypsy; public-Gypsy. We hypothesized a linear
sequence ranging from the experimental condition
which was the most favourable for the expression of
counternormative aspects to the experimental condi-
tion which was the most favourable for the expression
of normative content. According to Rosenthal et al.
(2000), in order to show a linear effect, we must observe
a significant linear contrast and not significant qua-
dratic and cubic ones.
The analyses revealed a significant effect of the gen-
eral model concerning the ordering of the experimental
conditions, F(3, 235) = 5.19, p < .01, ηp² = .06. In this
regard we obtained a significant linear effect, t(238) =
3.69, p < .001, d = 0.48. Otherwise, neither the quadratic
contrast, t(238) = 1.19, p = .23, d = 0.15, nor the cubic
one, t(238) = 0.62, p = .53, d = 0.08, reached the conven-
tional threshold of significance. Considering these
results and the experimental conditions, it seems pos-
sible to conclude a linear order of the experimental
conditions as follows: private-non-Gypsy > private-
Gypsy > public-non-Gypsy > public-Gypsy.
Nevertheless, despite the observed linear effect, one
cannot ignore the proximity between the means rela-
tive to the “private-Gypsy” and “private-non-Gypsy”
conditions. Thus, it seems that in a private context, the
evaluation of the associated beliefs did not depend on
the status of the experimenter. Otherwise, the linear
effect indicates that the associated beliefs are more posi-
tively evaluated in a public context of expression espe-
cially when the experimenter is presented as a Gypsy.
Discussion
On the basis of these results, the emergence of cross-
cutting trends can be observed across all the analyses
Public context
Gypsy Experimenter non-Gypsy Experimenter
4.69 (1.18) 4.35 (1.05)
we conducted. Effectively, we observe a rather regular
presence of positive and negative elements concerning
the Gypsies among the participants' answers. Thus,
beyond a great deal of descriptive and normative con-
tent such as the categories “nomadic”, “community”,
“solidarity” or “conviviality”, other categories like
“thieves”, “dirty” and “nuisances” could be noticed.
These different categories of content appear within the
framework of the prototypical analysis but also at the
level of the qualitative analysis of the sentences sup-
plied by the participants in order to contextualize their
answers, thus providing us with clues which would
help improve the objectivity of the facilitating the cate-
gorization of the associated words. This qualitative
analysis allowed us to distinguish two classes. The first
one is related to content that could be considered as
descriptive and/or normative while the second one is
composed of a more negative content. This distinction
confirms the results of the prototypical analysis and
the relevance of the categorization carried out on the
basis of the words associated by the participants.
Here we can see that more than 13 years after the
study conducted by Guimelli and Deschamps (2000),
the SR of the Gypsies is still characterized by the
presence of normative and counternormative content.
Therefore Gypsies could still be considered as a “sensi-
tive object”. As these authors have highlighted, the
presence of such counternormative content entails the
use of specific methodologies with a view to collecting
those elements which are less likely to be found in
standard conditions of questioning. Thus, the method-
ologies that we employed, and more specifically, the
variation of the context of expression, led us to update
this content. We thus note, as we have mentioned
above in the text, the presence of the terms “thieves”
and “dirty”, terms that were also observed by Guimelli
and Deschamps (2000). However, despite these sim-
ilarities that stress the relative stability of the SR
(Guimelli, 1988; Moscovici, 1976), the presence of
counternormative elements is far less noticeable within
the framework of the present study, at least in relation
to the frequencies of associated words. Although the
hypothesis of an evolution of the social context in a
way that strengthens a non-discrimination norm could
 Contexts and Expression Related to Social Representations
hardly be ruled out, it seems more plausible to con-
sider that such a difference between the results of these
studies could be the consequence of the use of different
methodologies in order to gather counternormative
content. However this last hypothesis does not neces-
sarily imply that the manipulations of the context of
expression or the normative decontextualization are
less effective than the substitution technique. Effectively,
these two techniques are characterized by a fundamen-
tal difference that consists of putting the participant
in a situation where he has to answer in his own name,
as opposed to the substitution technique. It seems
therefore, reasonable to think that, the normative
pressure leads participants to inhibit the expression
of counternormative content, these techniques are
more threatening as they increase the involvement
of the participant with regard to his own expression.
The consequence of this difference may therefore be
the reduced presence of counternormative content.
However, these techniques have the advantage of
gathering content that conveys what participants have
in mind more accurately than the substitution tech-
nique which could lead to the collection of a poten-
tially wrong appraisal of the social norms that
characterize another group of people as mentioned
in the literature on pluralistic ignorance (see Miller,
Monin, & Prentice, 2000; Prentice & Miller, 1993).
Still, we also notice that these two methodologies
are not equivalent in terms of their efficacy and it was
mostly the manipulation of the context of expression
that led us to observe differences in the answers
given by the participants. In this respect, the pluri-
methodological stance adopted in the present study
allowed us to show the impact of this variable in the
course of the many analyses we performed. Indeed,
we observe variations in the mention of the word
“thieves” in terms of frequency (i.e., prototypical
analyses), or in terms of the differentiation of the
two classes (i.e., lexicometric analysis) or in terms of a
stronger correspondence with specific experimental
conditions (i.e., CORR. F. A.) and finally, in terms of
a contradiction between attitudinal valences on the
linear effect (i.e., contrasts analyses). However, the
second variable we manipulated did not achieve
the same success. This limited effect may be explained
by the operationalization of this variable. Effectively,
the experimenter has to present herself as a Parisian
girl or as a Gypsy according to the experimental con-
ditions. It is therefore possible that some observable
clues (e.g., her way of expression, dressing, etc.)
could have contributed to lowering the credibility of
this manipulation. Otherwise, unlike the experimental
induction conducted by Flament et al. (2006) which
was based on the ethnic membership of the experi-
menter characterized by several physical aspects,
9
within the framework of this study it was quite diffi-
cult to proceed in such a way. Thus, we cannot be as
sure as these authors were about the categorization of
the experimenter as a Parisian or a Gypsy student.
Nevertheless, all the research conducted in the area of
the study of the mute zone of SR and particularly that
which has drawn on this kind of methodology has high-
lighted a more significant effect of the context of expres-
sion (e.g., substitution technique) compared to normative
decontextualization once the two variables are used
together. Nevertheless, despite this limited impact of the
“normative decontextualization” variable, the congruity
with the initial results of Guimelli and Deschamps (2000)
and the strong regularity of the results observed in the
multiple analyses we conducted, emphasise the dual
value of manipulating the context of expression as part of
the collection of content in relation to sensitive objects
and the updating of the results related to these objects.
From these positive aspects stems one of the main lim-
itations of this study. Effectively, by conducting research
on the same object studied by Guimelli and Deschamps
(2000) 13 years earlier, and by using rival techniques to
the substitution technique, it would be possible to con-
sider that a direct comparison of these techniques within
the framework of the same study would have been more
relevant. However, as the use of the same object by
Guimelli and Deschamps (2000) seemed more appro-
priate for demonstrating the efficacy of the variables that
were manipulated, the aim of this study is not to compare
these techniques with the substitution technique.
Indeed, as indicated above, these techniques are fun-
damentally different from the substitution technique
in that they don't involve individuals in the same way
and that they favour collections of a different nature,
more related to what individuals have in their own
mind than to their perception of the norms of how the
object is perceived. So, these techniques are character-
ized by their own advantages and flaws, and are to our
point of view, not directly comparable.
Nevertheless it would be interesting to combine
these collection techniques. Indeed, this study opens
the way to other experiments which would allow us to
support these reflections by combining, for example,
manipulation of the context of expression with the
substitution technique. Such developments will help
to further knowledge on techniques that aim to collect
counternormative content. Moreover, such techniques
are not limited to the field of SR. Indeed, numerous
sensitive objects are studied outside of the conceptual
and methodological framework of this field, as in the
case, for example, of opinion surveys. Within such a
framework, the use of manipulation of the context of
expression could lead to a better knowledge of the way
individuals regard a sensitive object and to a better
prediction of their standpoint.
10 A. Piermattéo et al.
References
Abric J.-C. (1994). Méthodologie de recueil des représentations
sociales [social representations gathering methodology].
In J.-C. Abric (Ed.), Pratiques sociales et représentations
[Social practices and representations] (pp. 59–82).
Ramonville Saint-Agne, France: Erès.
Abric J.-C. (2003). La recherche du noyau central et de la
zone muette des représentations sociales [The searching
for the central core and the dumb zone of social
representations]. In J.-C. Abric (Ed.), Méthodes d’étude des
représentations sociales [Methods of study of social
representations] (pp. 59–80). Ramonville Saint-Agne,
France: Erès.
Anderson B. A., Silver B. D., & Abramson P. R. (1988).
The effects of the race of interviewer on race-related
attitudes of Blacks in SRC/CPS National Election Studies.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 289–324. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1086/269108
Apostolidis T. (2003). Représentations sociales et triangulation:
Enjeux théorico-méthodologiques [Social representations
and triangulation: Theoretical and methodological
issues]. In J. C. Abric (Ed.), Méthodes d’étude des
représentations sociales (pp. 13–35). Ramonville Saint-Agne,
France: Erès.
Benzécri J. P. (1976). L’analyse des correspondances
[The correspondence analysis]. Paris, France: Dunod.
Blanchard F. A., Crandall C. S., Brigham J. C., & Vaughn L. A.
(1994). Condemning and condoning racism: A social
context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 993–997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.79.6.993
Blanchard F. A., Lilly T., & Vaughn L. A. (1991). Reducing
the expression of racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 2,
101–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.
tb00108.x
Campbell B. (1981). Race-of-interviewer effects among
southern adolescents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45,
231–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268654
Chokier N., & Moliner P. (2006). La « zone muette » des
représentations sociales, pression normative et/ou
comparaison sociale [The “mute zone” of social
representations, normative pressure and/or social
comparison] Bulletin de psychologie, 59, 281–286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/bupsy.483.0281
Chokier N., & Rateau P. (2009). Représentations d’objets
« sensibles » et processus de comparaison soi/autrui
[Representations of “sensitive” objects and self-other
comparison process]. In P. Rateau & P. Moliner (Eds.),
Représentations sociales et processus sociocognitifs [Social
representations and sociocognitive processes]. (pp. 31–44).
Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Cibois P. (1983). L’analyse factorielle [The factorial analysis].
Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Davis D. W. (1997). Nonrandom measurement error and
race of interviewer effects among African Americans.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 183–207. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1086/297792
de Rosa A. S. (1988). Sur l’usage des associations libres dans
l’étude des représentations sociales de la maladie mentale
[On the use of free-associations in the study of the
social representations of mental illness]. Connexions,
51, 27–50.
de Rosa A. S. (1993). Social representations and attitudes:
problems of coherence between the theoretical definition
and procedure of research. Papers on Social Representations,
2, 1–15.
Deconchy J.-P., & Deschamps J.-C. (2006). Croyances et
controle. D’un discours “forcé” à un discours “spontané”
[Beliefs and control. From a “forced” discourse to a
“spontaneous” one]. Revue Internationale de Psychologie
Sociale, 19, 93–124.
Denzin N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical
introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Deschamps J. C. (2003). Analyse des correspondances et
variations des contenus des représentations sociales
[Correspondence analysis and variations in the content of
social representations]. In J. C. Abric (Ed.), Méthodes d’étude
des représentations sociales (pp. 179–200). Ramonville
Saint-Agne, France: Erès.
Deschamps J.-C., & Guimelli C. (2002). La composante
émotionnelle des représentations sociales: Émotions
rapportées et tendances à l'action dans une étude
comparative des représentations sociales de l'insécurité en
France et en Suisse [The emotional component of social
representations: Reported emotions and action tendency
in the framework of a comparative study of social
representations of insecurity in France and in Switzerland].
Nouvelle Revue de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 78–84.
Deschamps J.-C., & Guimelli C. (2004). L’organisation
interne des représentations sociales de la sécurité/
insécurité et l’hypothèse de la « zone muette » [The inner
organization of social representations of security/insecurity
and the “mute zone” hypothesis]. In J.-L. Beauvois,
R.-V. Joule & J.-M. Monteil (Eds.), Perspectives cognitives
et conduites sociales [Cognitive perspectives and social
behaviors], (Vol. 9., pp. 105–130). Rennes, France: Presses
Universitaires de Rennes.
Deschamps J.-C., Paez D., & Pennebaker J. (2001). Mémoire
collective des évènements socio-politiques et culturels:
Représentation sociale du passé à la fin du millénium
[Collective memory of socio-political and cultural events:
Social representation of the past at the end of the
millennium]. Psychologie et Société, 2, 26–53.
Di Giacomo J.-P. (1981). Aspects méthodologiques de
l’analyse des représentations [Methodological aspects of
the analysis of representations]. Cahiers de Psychologie
Cognitive, 1, 397–422.
Di Giacomo J. P. (1986) Alliance et rejets intergroupes au
sein d'un mouvement de revendication [Intergroup
alliances and rejections at the heart of a protestation
movement]. In W. Doise & A. Palmonari (Eds.), L'ètude des
reprèsentations sociales (pp. 118–138). Neuchâtel, Suiza:
Delachaux et Niestlé.
Doise W., Clemence A., & Lorenzi-Cioldi F. (1993).
The quantitative analysis of social representations. Hemel
Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Ernst-Vintila A., Delouvée S., & Roland-Levy C. (2011).
Under threat. Lay thinking about terrorism and the
 Contexts and Expression Related to Social Representations
three-dimensional model of personal involvement.
A social psychological analysis. Journal of Risk Research,
14, 297–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.5
33468
Fazio R. H., Jackson J. R., Dunton B. C., & Williams C. J.
(1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobstrusive
measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.6.1013
Finkel S. E., Guterbock T. M., & Borg M. J. (1991). Race-of-
interviewer effects in a presidential poll: Virginia 1989.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 313–330.
Flament C., Guimelli C., & Abric J.-C. (2006). Effets de
masquage dans l’expression d’une représentation sociale
[Masking effects in the expression of a social representation].
Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 69, 15–31.
Flament C., & Milland L. (2003). Un effet Guttman dans
l’analyse des représentations sociales [A Guttman effect in
the analysis of social representations]. In J.-C. Abric (Ed.),
Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales (pp. 201–220).
Ramonville Saint-Agne, France: Erès.
Flament C., & Milland L. (2005). Un effet Guttman en ACP
[A Guttman effect in PCA]. Mathématiques et Sciences
Humaines, 71, 25–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/msh.2946
Flament C., & Milland L. (2010). La substitution dans les
études de représentations sociales: quel processus impliqué ?
[The substitution technique in social representations
studies: Which process involved ?]. Psychologie française,
55, 195–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2010.05.003
Gaymard S. (2006). The representation of old people:
Comparison between the professionals and students.
International Review of Social Psychology, 19, 69–92.
Gilbert D. T., & Hixon J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking:
Activation and application of stereotyping beliefs. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509–517. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.4.509
Goffman E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Guimelli C. (1996). Valence et structure des représentations
sociales [Valence and structure of social representations].
Bulletin de Psychologie, 49, 58–72.
Guimelli C. (1998). Chasse et nature en Languedoc. Étude de la
dynamique d’une représentation sociale chez des chasseurs
languedociens languedociens [Hunting and nature in
Languedoc. The study of the dynamic of a social
representation among Languedocian hunters]. Paris,
France: L’Harmattan.
Guimelli C. (2003). Le modèle des schèmes cognitifs de base
(SCB). Méthode et applications [The basic cognitive schemes
model (BCS). Methodology and applications]. In J.-C. Abric
(Ed.), Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales (pp. 119–146).
Ramonville Saint-Agne, France: Erès.
Guimelli C., & Deschamps J.-C. (2000). Effets de contexte
sur la production d’associations verbales. Le cas de la
représentation sociale des Gitans [Contextual effects on
the production of word associations. The case of the social
representation of Gypsies]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de
Psychologie Sociale, 47, 44–54.
Guimelli C., Lo Monaco G., & Deschamps J.-C. (2010).
The lawsuit against “Charlie Hebdo” and its effects on
11
the social representations of the Muslim Community.
International Review of Social Psychology, 23, 5–36.
Hidalgo M. (2012). Représentations sociales et contextes: Études
autour de l’expression et des comportements en lien avec les
éléments masqués [Social representations and contexts:
Studies about the expression and behaviors related to
masked elements]. Aix-en-Provence, France: Thèse de
Doctorat de l’Université d’Aix-Marseille.
Jellison J. M., & Green J. (1981). A self-presentation approach
to the fundamental attribution error: The norm of internality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 643–649.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.40.4.643
Kuran T. (1995). Private truths, public lies. The social consequences
of preference falsification. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University
Press.
Lajunen T., & Summala H. (2003). Can we trust self-reports
of driving? Effects of impression management on driver
behaviour questionnaire responses. Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6, 97–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(03)00008-1
Lambert A. J., Payne B. K., Jacoby L. L., Shaffer L. M.,
Chasteen A. L., & Khan S. R. (2003). Stereotypes as
dominant responses: On the “social facilitation” of prejudice
in anticipated public contexts. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 277–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-
3514.84.2.277
Le Bouedec G. (1984). Contribution à la méthodologie
d’étude des représentations sociales [Contribution to the
methodology of study of social representations]. Cahiers de
Psychologie Cognitive, 4, 245–272.
Lo Monaco G. (2008). Les représentations sociales du vin. Etude
du rôle de quelques facteurs intervenant dans la construction
sociale de la réalité [Social representations of wine. A Study
of the role of some factors intervening in the social
construction of reality]. Aix-en-Provence, France: Thèse de
Doctorat de l’Université de Provence.
Lo Monaco G., & Guimelli C. (2008). Représentations sociales,
pratique de consommation et niveau de connaissance: Le cas
du Vin [Social representations, consumption practices and
level of knowledge: The case of wine]. Les Cahiers
Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 78, 35–50.
Lo Monaco G., & Guimelli C. (2011). Hegemonic and
polemical beliefs: Culture and consumption in the social
representation of wine. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,
14, 232–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.
v14.n1.21
Lo Monaco G., Lheureux F., Chianèse L., Codaccioni C.,
Halimi-Falkowicz S., & Cano P. (2009). Contexte
d’expression, statut social des intervenants de santé
et production d’un discours normatif: Le cas de l’alcool
et des jeunes [Contexts of expression, social status of
health actors and production of a normative discourse:
The case of alcohol and young people]. Pratiques
psychologiques, 15, 367–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
prps.2008.02.002
Lo Monaco G., Piermattéo A., Guimelli C., & Abric J.-C.
(2012). Questionnaire of characterization and
correspondence factor analysis: A methodological
contribution in the field of social representations.
The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 15, 1233–1243.
 12 A. Piermattéo et al.
Mamontoff A. M. (1996). Transformation de la représentation
sociale de l’identité et schèmes étranges: Le cas des Gitans
[Transformation of the social representation of identity
and strange schemes: The case of Gypsies]. Les Cahiers
Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 29, 64–77.
Mamontoff A. M. (2008). Dynamique de la fonction identitaire
des représentations sociales dans le cas d’une rencontre
entre deux cultures [Dynamic of the identity function of
social representations in the framework of the encounter
between two cultures]. Anuario de Psicología, 39, 249–268.
Marková I., Moodie I., Farr R., Drozda-Senkowska E., Erös F.,
Plichtová J., ... Mullerová O. (1998). Social representations
of the individual: A post-communist perspective. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 797–829. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199809/10)28:5<797::AID-
EJSP896>3.0.CO;2-6
Miller D. T., Monin B., & Prentice D. A. (2000). Pluralistic
Ignorance and inconsistency between private attitudes
and public behaviors. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.),
Attitudes, behavior and social context. The role of norms and
group membership (pp. 95–113). London, UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Monteith M. J, Deneen N. E., & Tooman G. D. (1996).
The effect of social norm activation on the expression of
opinions concerning Gay men and Blacks. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 18, 267–288. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1207/s15324834basp1803_2
Moscovici S. (1976). La psychanalyse, son image et son public
[Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public]. Paris, France:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Mouret M., Lo Monaco G., Urdapilleta I., & Parr W. (2013).
Social representations of wine and culture: A comparison
between France and New Zealand. Food Quality and
Preference, 30, 102–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2013.04.014
Pérez J. A., Moscovici S., & Chulvi B. (2007). The taboo
against group contact: Hypothesis of Gypsy ontologization.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 249–272. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1348/014466606X111301
Piermattéo A., Lo Monaco G., Guimelli C., & Brel P. (2012).
Représentations sociales et applications dans le champ du
marketing du vin [Social representations and applications
in the field of wine marketing]. Psihologia Sociala, 29, 53–70.
View publication stats
Plant E. A., & Devine P. G. (1998). Internal and external
motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.3.811
Prentice D. A., & Miller D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance
and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of
misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 243–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//
0022-3514.64.2.243
Reinert M. (1993). Les “mondes lexicaux” et leur “logique”
à travers l'analyse statistique d'un corpus de récits de
cauchemars [The “lexical worlds” and their “logic” through
the statistical analysis of a body of nightmare stories].
Langage et société, 66, 5–39.
Rosenthal R., Rosnow R. L., & Rubin D. B. (2000). Contrasts
and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schuman H., & Converse J. M. (1971). The effect of
black and white interviewers on Black responses.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 35, 44–68. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1086/267866
Sechrist G. B., Swim J. K., & Stangor C. (2004). When do
the stigmatized make attributions to discrimination
occurring to the self and others? The roles of self-
presentation and need for control. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87, 111–122. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.111
Stangor C., Swim J. K., Van allen K. L., & Sechrist G. B.
(2002). Reporting discrimination in public and private
contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
69–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.69
Sudman S., & Bradburn N. M. (1974). Response effects in
surveys: A review and synthesis. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Tavani J. L. (2012). Mémoire sociale et pensée sociale. Etudes
empiriques de leurs influences croisées [Social memory and
social thinking. Empirical studies of their crossed influences].
Paris, France: Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université Paris
Descartes.
Wagner W., Valencia J., & Elejabarrieta F. (1996). Relevance,
discourse and the “hot” stable core of social
representation. A structural analysis of word associations.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 331–351. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01101.x